Each group has multiple tasks and the more folks we can get on board, the better. Please contact the folks listed if you are willing to help out. It is hard to tell up front which group will need more people and our distribution is not completely even at this point—the bottom line is we could use some folks to join each group below.

2. We could also use more wording papers—either individually authored or from groups.

It would be best if people did not overlap with the broad areas we will spell out below, but even overlap is not a terrible thing for this process. If there is a specific resolution you would like to see, put it down on paper and defend it. If there are more areas you would like to see included, put them down on paper and defend them. Checking in with the existing wording groups would be a good idea, but isolated research can still be useful research.

3. Moving toward Hester’s model.

Instead of each wording group working on a little piece of the puzzle and then trying to put all the pieces together during the meeting (which can lead to bizarre sausage or a “make your own adventure” without cohesion, the wording groups should try to defend full resolutions. Yes, each group has specific questions to research and certain foci to flesh out, but those specifics should be blended into full resolutions if possible.

4. Share and consult.

The more the better—a few days is not enough time if everyone is learning about each other’s work for the first time at the actual meeting.

5. Due Date

Monday, June 9th. Preferably early in the day. We need time to go through all the material before the meeting, not to mention travel time. Early papers are welcome and encouraged. Please post completed papers in the CEDA Forums.Details that apply to all (three) groups

1. All the groups should be thinking about “legalize vs. decriminalize” in a number of ways:

a) Which word goes with which area? The priority is on legalize across the board and determining its modifier (if any). It may be necessary (hopefully not) to use both verbs in the same wordings in order to match them with the actions, but the definitions seem fluid enough to make that unnecessary.

b) Modifiers for the verbs that work or do not work. “Substantially/completely/nearly all/etc.” Herndon has done some extensive work in this area already (and he mentions in the paper he would be willing to do more— hint  ), but we think it will make sense for each group to look into this series of questions.

c) Is this a place for diversity in the wordings or not? Again, we are currently leaning toward “legalize with a modifier” as the main stem, although we do not want to dismiss “decriminalize with a modifier” as potential aff ground.

d) Look into “legalization and regulation” as well as “remove (all) penalties.” It is true that the paper is set up as a “negative state action” topic (Regnier on CEDA Forums) which would tend to make regulation negative ground…on the other hand, evidence suggests that legalization and decriminalization can go along with regulation (and may even imply regulation). Even the reversal of prohibition established a drinking age (which is technically a regulation). Something to research and contemplate.

e) If we do use both verbs, how do we phrase it?…here’s a useful post from CEDA Forums:

“You're right, Adam--this is a key question for the verb. All of the wording groups are going to be diving into this question...the hope is to have a recommendation for each activity along with resolutions that potentially use both...something like:

R: X,Y, Z, or Q should be fully legalized or H, I, J, or K should be substantially decriminalized. Yes, very bulky, but coming along...

It does seem likely that selecting a single mechanism (either decriminalization or legalization) will not work uniformly for all of the areas. This will either necessitate decrim attached to areas that work // legalization attached to its own areas or choosing the most ripe areas and constructing a monstrosity of a resolution that adapts to each of the areas....

f) yes, there will be overlap because all the groups are looking into these component of the wording—that’s ok. We need multiple perspectives on this and it can help to prevent cross-pollination at times.2. Suggestions.

As much as possible, include your recommendations and reservations, alternative phrasings, additional definitions, citations, and more work on where the debates you are advocating would evolve.

3. Communal approach.

The more work we do, the better the topics and the better the season. “holding back” your research at this early stage is not only bad karma (which matters), it is also antithetical to the educational goals of the entire activity. Find something interesting or useful outside of your area?—include it or pass it on to someone who can use it.

Group Three: Agents vs. Passive Voice and Areas Needing More Work or Not Listed in the Paper

Could use some help working on some of these issues as well as prioritizing which ones have the most promise. Some of these are definitely non-starters but others could be really good. We do have a bunch of citations on the financial crimes areas from Hays Watson if someone is interested in pursuing that.

Otherwise, if you had to pick 3-5 of these to explore, what you pick and why? In addition, if you want to help with a mini-wording paper on one or more of these, please let us know.

I'd definitely like to see piracy in the topic. There is a huge literature base about it, and it seems to fit the theme of the other mandatory inclusions (things that are widely done despite being illegal).Same-sex marriage also fits this description, but it seems there is a lot happening in regards to legalization on this front in the squo.